NBA Roundtable Discussion

[Guest]

Team's stand-pat approach doesn't sit well with Garnett.

 

By doing nothing at the NBA trading deadline Thursday, the Timberwolves actually might have done a whole lot of something to alter their team.

 

Kevin Garnett, the Wolves' All-Star forward, made it pretty clear after the shootaround Friday morning that he was not happy with the stand-pat approach.

 

"We made no moves. Typical," Garnett said in a raspy voice, apparently fighting a cold.

 

Asked if he had been hoping for a trade to boost the team's playoff chances, Garnett responded: "We're trying to get better, right? It is what it is."

 

A couple of minutes later, after some comments about Phoenix, he offered a glimpse at how "not happy" he really was.

 

"Thank God for opt-outs," Garnett said as he wrapped up the brief interview.

 

The 7-foot franchise player has an opt-out clause in his contract after the 2007-08 season, before the final year of his current contract.

 

http://www.startribune.com/511/story/1022668.html

Sorry if I just jizzed myself while reading that Minnesota might trade him during the offseason while they can get some value and that KG is a player that the Lakers would bust the trade bank to get.

[Mr. S£im Citrus 0]

You think Mitch would put Bynum on the table to get Garnett?

[Guest]

With a signed extension for KG (cause we all know he ain't signing with Minnesota, a sign and trade), not a doubt in my mind. He is the perfect triangle player.

 

For those that don't know what I'm talking about when I always mention the triangle, the perfect triangle player is one that has 18-20 ft range, great passing, great back to basket play, and a good one on one game for the occasional iso. Garnett could play in this offense till he hit 40.

 

Dude makes this team, regardless of what they give up, an instant title contender.

[Just John 0]

The Lakers would be an instant contender with Garnett unless, for some unforseen reason, they lost Kobe.

 

However, there are lots of other teams that would be gunning for him, and most would have something better to offer than the Lakers unproven guys, underachievers, and expiring contracts.

[Vern Gagne 0]

He meant to say thank goodness for outs. Whatever the differnce is.

 

Until he asks to be traded he's not going anywhere.

 

How many teams can realistically and would be willing to trade for Garnett if he becomes available? The Wolves need draft picks, young talent (preferably inside help) or expiring contracts.

[Failed Bridge 0]

Celtics have enough young chips to get KG in a trade.

[Fökai 0]

By next winter, every team in the league could feasibly have pieces to move for Garnett, based on how this summer's draft will play out.

 

I just want to see him in a new environment. Chicago, Los Angeles, who cares. Just as long as he's out of Kevin McHale's hands.

[Failed Bridge 0]

If the Celts draft Oden or Durant then they could give up Kendrik Perkins, Ryan Gomes, Sebastian Telfair, Theo Ratliff, and their first round pick in 08 for him. I would think that would be enough young talent for Minn.

 

Only current C's players I would say are untouchable are Pierce, Al Jefferson, Gerald Green, and Delonte West.

[Brett Favre 0]

You'd have to give up Jefferson and Green or West plus those expirings and a pick for Garnett. The only guy with a bit of upside from the players you propose is Telfair.

[Failed Bridge 0]

have you watched Ryan Gomes play? He's going to be a very good player.

[Brett Favre 0]

He has no true position though, and his potential isn't as high as any Telfair, Green, or Jefferson. He's a nice player, who does a little of everything, but not very good at any one particular thing.

[Precious Roy 0]

He'll be a decent player, but come on, that package for KG is total garbage, and the 08 pick would be pretty worthless since you'd assume that with Oden/Durant, KG, Pierce, Jefferson, Green, West Rondo etc. the Celtics would be a juggernaut.

 

Realistically the Celtics would have to give up Jefferson or Oden/Durant/whoever, plus a couple players from the Green/West/Gomes/Rondo/Telfair group. If you're trading for Kevin F'n Garnett you need to give up a little more than Ryan Gomes and some scrubs.

[Failed Bridge 0]

I don't feel that Gomes and Telfair are grabage, and Perkins when healthy is a good low post defender. If Tony Allen hadn't gone and injured himself then he'd be a nice addition to that package as well.

 

Edit:

Gomes, second year in the league and averaging 12.3 PPG and 5.7 RPG. Those numbers are sure to climb to about 18-20PPG and 8-10 RPG in the next couple years.

 

Telfair, while only getting a bit over 20min a game is averaging 7.2 PPG and 3.1 APG. He's not much of a defensive presense but if his minutes go up then his line will be much better.

 

Perkins is under 20min a game as well, gets 4 PPG, 4.3 RPG, and 1.3 BPG. His minutes go up and he stays healthy then he's a nice back-up center.

 

Ratliff's contract expires after next season while the three players listed above would make a combined $8mill approximately. Not a bad deal if the T-Wolves are planning on rebuilding.

[Failed Bridge 0]

Its also nice to see the Celts have over $10mill coming off the books next year.

[Guest]

The T-Wolves will want a future franchise player, let's be honest. Bynum is a future franchise player, and if the Lakers put him in with Odom (because contracts have to work) that offer can't be beaten by anyone.

[Precious Roy 0]

Gomes is a solid well rounded player, but he's a tweener and a consistent 18-8+ is a lot to ask from the guy. He has some really good games and other games where he doesn't do much, and he did play a full 4 years at Providence, so he's pretty much a finished product. Perkins is a capable backup center with diamond in the rough potential. Telfair is on the verge of being a bust, doesn't play d, doesn't stick open Js, has questions about his attitude, and he's looked pretty bad for Boston. He just lost his job to a rookie for the second year in a row, and Minnesota already has Randy Foye at the point. These are all throw in type players in a deal for KG. Your proposed trade is great for the Celtics, but rebuilding or not, there is no way Minnesota would trade him without getting Jefferson and/or the lottery pick plus a couple other young guys who you probably don't want to trade, and there's no way that's the best offer Minnesota would get.

[Guest Vitamin X]

Raef LaFrentz, LaMarcus Aldridge, and Joel Pryzbilla for KG. Trade Machine says it works. Ideally, Portland would've shipped out Magloire and/or Udoka as well, because their contracts are expiring, and we'd keep LaFrentz or Pryzbilla, but maybe we could do a sign and trade? I'm not entirely sure how sign and trades work. But I think this is a deal that could work. Aldridge obviously has a ton of upside, and Pryzbilla is a hell of a center, even if he's been injured a lot recently. LaFrentz would be in there to even out the salaries, but Minny would get a nice deal.

 

And Portland would have KG to provide veteran leadership, Randolph banging down low, and Brandon Roy/Jarrett Jack on the outside. I've always been of the opinion a great team in the NBA always needs three players you can point to and say that's why they win. With the Spurs, it's Manu, Parker, and Duncan. Suns, it's Nash, Marion, and Stoudamire. And so on and so forth. A trade like that, while it would deplete Portland's bench up front a bit, would make them instant contenders, as would pretty much any team that gets KG. I don't know how much he'd be up for coming here, though.

[Guest Oedipus Rex]

2000-01-2 Lakers: Shaq, Kobe, ?

[Guest]

Glen Rice the first year, then role players the next two.

[Guest Oedipus Rex]

Well isn't the point that we're talking three guys who aren't just role players? That sorta kills that theory. Oh well, the NBA stopped mattering after 1998 anyway.

[Brett Favre 0]

Well maybe in Chicago.

[Guest Vitamin X]

I'm not necessarily referring to how it was during the Lakers' threepeat. In fact, "team play" basketball in my opinion, has surfaced once the Pistons beat the Lakers in the NBA Finals. They had the Wallaces, Chauncey Billups, and Rip Hamilton. Even without Ben, they've still got Sheed-Billups-Hamilton which is why they're still a threat in today's NBA. It's kind of like the Patriots in football, who've won utilizing a solid overall team, with great players here and there, rather than having future hall of famers all over the place signed to huge contracts with the rest being C-level players who can be exposed as weaknesses. But if you look at the top teams:

 

Dallas: Terry-Howard-Nowitzki

Phoenix: Nash-Marion-Stoudamire

Detroit: Hamilton-Billups-Wallace

Washington: Arenas-Butler-Jamison

San Antonio: Parker-Ginobili-Duncan

Utah: Okur-Kirilenko-Williams

 

Every team that's trying to break into the elite tier is always missing the third player to get up there. But once you have that strong third player, that's what helps you succeed in today's NBA. Anyways, that's just my theory.

[AboveAverage484 0]

I'm not necessarily referring to how it was during the Lakers' threepeat. In fact, "team play" basketball in my opinion, has surfaced once the Pistons beat the Lakers in the NBA Finals. They had the Wallaces, Chauncey Billups, and Rip Hamilton. Even without Ben, they've still got Sheed-Billups-Hamilton which is why they're still a threat in today's NBA. It's kind of like the Patriots in football, who've won utilizing a solid overall team, with great players here and there, rather than having future hall of famers all over the place signed to huge contracts with the rest being C-level players who can be exposed as weaknesses. But if you look at the top teams:

 

Dallas: Terry-Howard-Nowitzki

Phoenix: Nash-Marion-Stoudamire

Detroit: Hamilton-Billups-Wallace

Washington: Arenas-Butler-Jamison

San Antonio: Parker-Ginobili-Duncan

Utah: Okur-Kirilenko-Williams

 

Every team that's trying to break into the elite tier is always missing the third player to get up there. But once you have that strong third player, that's what helps you succeed in today's NBA. Anyways, that's just my theory.

 

Hell, I'd put Boozer on there before Kirilenko; this year anyways.

[alfdogg 0]

Larry Bird said in an interview on Saturday that it's a "tough reach" to think that this Pacer team can win a championship. I'm sure this is comforting news to Jermaine O'Neal, who has hinted on several occasions that he may ask for a trade this summer.

[Just John 0]

Every team that's trying to break into the elite tier is always missing the third player to get up there. But once you have that strong third player, that's what helps you succeed in today's NBA. Anyways, that's just my theory.

 

Miami did just fine with Wade/Shaq and role players.

[MFer 0]

I saw this interesting stat today. Unless the T-Wolves win the West this year (which they obviously won't) KG will have had the most All-Star game appearances in NBA history without a Finals appearance with 10. He's currently tied with George Gervin with 9. Not the kind of legacy you wanna leave behind I would say.

[Ripper 0]

Every team that's trying to break into the elite tier is always missing the third player to get up there. But once you have that strong third player, that's what helps you succeed in today's NBA. Anyways, that's just my theory.

 

Miami did just fine with Wade/Shaq and role players.

 

Udonis Haslim is sickingly underrated.

 

People call him a role player, if that role having a near flawless 15 foot jump shot, getting you double digit rebounds every game and guarding the best front court player because shaq can do it anymore.

 

If Haslim put up the same numbers on another team, people would appreciate him more.

[Just John 0]

Haslem is underrated, but I still have trouble thinking of him as more than a role player. He's a good defender and hits open jumpers. His season average now for pts/reb is about 10/8, which is solid, but not enough to be considered an elite third player, I wouldn't think. I see him as one of those really good role players like Shane Battier.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

Am I the only one who thinks giving up Bynum & Odom for Garnett would be a bad move by the Lakers?

[Cheech Tremendous 0]

Am I the only one who thinks giving up Bynum & Odom for Garnett would be a bad move by the Lakers?

 

Probably not, but you should be.